Thread: Universe is like a 3D Rainbow (New Proposal)

M-DIMENSIOM

My honest opinion ? A wall of text, in the style of pop-sci, liberally interspersed with errors, devoid of any scientific content or value.
Sorry.

This does not belong in Links. It is neither informative nor useful.

Moved to New Hypotheses.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

My honest opinion ? A wall of text, in the style of pop-sci, liberally interspersed with errors, devoid of any scientific content or value.
Sorry.

Please, could you tell me which errors?

Originally Posted by adelady

This does not belong in Links. It is neither informative nor useful.

Moved to New Hypotheses.

Is it possible to link it as a blog to discuss?

Any discussion on this topic will be in this thread. It's as close to a blog discussion as we get.

If people aren't interested, then there won't be any discussion. Just as if it were a blog post that didn't get any comments.

ABSTRACT

Our known Universe (between 10^-35 & 10^+27 meters) is a small band within the total GlobalUniverse scale spectrum, which, inprinciple, can be infinite.

Our Universe is a "bubble"else of the many that exist in a larger scale than ours, within the Global Universe, and which also hadtheir own Big Bangat different times.

Althoughthe Underlying Fundamental Laws are thesame for all spectra and ranges of the Global Universe, they manifest differently through them.

For thedifferent bands of thespectrum of the 3D Rainbow may dominate different stimuli and waves,different fields andforces. And can beformed different entities and bodies. Parallel Universes can coexist in differentScale Levels(Also within the Planck Volume).

Different levels of scales can beconsidered PhysicalOpen Systems, and this wouldmean that there could be an exchange of energy between them.

Where is the evidence for this "theory"?
What quantitative predictions does this "theory" make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
Why should anyone take this seriously?

Seen this nonsense before.

Looks like crap is increasing with time elapsing for us in this forum...whats your definition of rainbow? Can someone take this to the trash can?

Originally Posted by Strange

Where is the evidence for this "theory"?
What quantitative predictions does this "theory" make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
Why should anyone take this seriously?

You can read the last part (SEARCH FOR EVIDENDES ABOUT THE 3D RAINBOW) were it is decribed different ways to get evidences.

But the important is ithat this proposal could give a coherent idea, and give a possibility that didn´t break with the current mainstream ideas...but gives a wider choice and greatest potential ... to improve.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Seen this nonsense before.

Originally Posted by merumario

Looks like crap is increasing with time elapsing for us in this forum...whats your definition of rainbow? Can someone take this to the trash can?

Ok I know I make a similar proposal some months ago...but now it is improved and polished (??)

I only would like to know if there are there any mistake or error... that may contradict accepted and tested hypotheses.

Ok I know I make a similar proposal some months ago...but now it is improved and polished (??)

There's an old saying, which, while it was disproved by Mythbusters, is still apropo.

You can't shine shit.

Explain your idea to me in one sentence.

Originally Posted by merumario

Explain your idea to me in one sentence.

There can be other Universes Out of the limits of Our Univese, as well in the larg, and in the small...Universe inside or within the Planck Volume...and infnite times !!!

Our Universe is an OPEN SYSTEM (no closed as now it is suposed)..and can exchange energy...and matter.

Pleas, read post 7:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...tml#post372568

Originally Posted by AlexG

Ok I know I make a similar proposal some months ago...but now it is improved and polished (??)

There's an old saying, which, while it was disproved by Mythbusters, is still apropo.

You can't shine shit.

Shit is in many places...You really smell like shit!

So, no evidence, no math, no theory.

As so many people have pointed out that this is just meaningless nonsense, I'm not sure why you are still wasting time on it.

Just think what you could have done with that time: study science, learn some math, do something useful.

This is not a theory nor a hypothesis.

It's unbalanced speculation, nothing more. There's nothing wrong with speculation and wondering. At times, I wonder if our Universe is something that stands apart or something that exists within. I don't talk about it much because it's just idle speculation. It's not something we can test right now.
If you want to discuss it, you must first recognize it as mostly baseless speculation and not science but philosophy.

Originally Posted by Strange

So, no evidence, no math, no theory.

As so many people have pointed out that this is just meaningless nonsense, I'm not sure why you are still wasting time on it.

Just think what you could have done with that time: study science, learn some math, do something useful.

During this time I learn a lot of the "State of the Art" physics...thanks to you and a lot of other people...and reading books and internet info.

And every time I have more clear that what this article says is true ... and that the evidence will come in the next few years ... by following the lines I propose in the last section of the article.

And one of the things that make me believe that the content of the article is correct, is that no one has been able to show any evidence or demostration contrary (against) to it. All deny it, say it sucks, it makes no sense ... but do not give any reasoning to prove or demonstrate that it is not true ... It is strange no?

I would like to challenge all those who believe that their content is incorrect, that give some reasoning against .... or better any evidence or proof.

I'm going to listen gladly .... but they do not tell me "that also pink elephants can fly around a black hole ..."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is not a theory nor a hypothesis.

It's unbalanced speculation, nothing more. There's nothing wrong with speculation and wondering. At times, I wonder if our Universe is something that stands apart or something that exists within. I don't talk about it much because it's just idle speculation. It's not something we can test right now.
If you want to discuss it, you must first recognize it as mostly baseless speculation and not science but philosophy.

OK I agree with you....but two things:

- Can you give any reasonings agains it?... there is any mainstream theory that deny what this article says?...if yes... please, tell me.

- If you don´t propose any idea...then you don´t have any thing to prove or demostrate (!?)... please read the las point of the article...SEARCH FOR EVIDENDES ABOUT THE 3D RAINBOW...there you have some line to follow to prove it...and possible there will be more !!!

Originally Posted by dapifo

- Can you give any reasonings agains it?

Irrelevant. No one can 'prove a negative.'
The question is, can you provide any evidence for it?
That is the proper question.

Originally Posted by dapifo

- If you don´t propose any idea...then you don´t have any thing to prove or demostrate (!?)

Actually no, this applies to you, not to me.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're not providing ordinary evidence, even.

What you are talking about is pure speculation. And there's nothing wrong with that. Many great thinkers begin with speculation.
But be honest with what you're doing.

Originally Posted by dapifo

And one of the things that make me believe that the content of the article is correct, is that no one has been able to show any evidence or demostration contrary (against) to it.

Do you realise that almost every person who come to these forums with their own "personal theory/idea" about the universe says exactly that?

You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)

Your previous threads followed exactly this pattern. And, if anyone can be bothered to answer the same questions again, I imagine this one will go the same way.

Originally Posted by Strange

You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)

That is the problem....tha any body "explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong". ...did you?

OK..it is true...it is speculation.."And there's nothing wrong with that"...

But yes I can prove that 2+2 is not 5...and you?

Originally Posted by dapifo

OK..it is true...it is speculation.."And there's nothing wrong with that"...

But yes I can prove that 2+2 is not 5...and you?

2+2 does not equal 5 is something we can work with. What is outside of the Universe is not something we can currently work with.
I cannot "prove the idea wrong," and even if no one did (whether people that could exist or not) is irrelevant. Because whether someone's proven it wrong is a slapdash way of going about it.

Look, do you believe in leprechauns until someone proves they don't exist?
That makes no sense, does it?

Sure with some things, some folks will show the obvious errors in it. Usually, with things already well understood. But leprechauns or what is outside of the universe is not well understood.

OK Neverfly...I understand "all the contents of the artiche seems to be coherent...but has to be proved"...isn´t it?

At the end of the article...SEARCH FOR EVIDENDES ABOUT THE 3D RAINBOW...there are some methodes to prove it...and possible there will be more of them!!!...it is a problem of time that could be proved ... or denied...

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Strange

You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)

That is the problem....tha any body "explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong". ...did you?

Crank: "Prove me wrong!"
Normal human being: "OK ... <detailed explanation of what is wrong with every single point raised>"
Crank: "See, no one can prove me wrong!"

Thanks for confirming my prediction and demonstrating that your behaviour perfectly fits that of a crank.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Strange

You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)

That is the problem....tha any body "explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong". ...did you?

Crank: "Prove me wrong!"
Normal human being: "OK ... <detailed explanation of what is wrong with every single point raised>"
Crank: "See, no one can prove me wrong!"

Thanks for confirming my prediction and demonstrating that your behaviour perfectly fits that of a crank.

No Strange...I am not saying that this proposal is true...the only thing I say that is not wrong...and then could be a possibility to have into account for the future...it is just another hypotesis for a Whole Universe...that in the future will be proved if it is true ...or not !!!

And in this article I also include different proposalls to check or prove it....

But I´ll very glad if any body could:

- Give any reasoning that could prove that any of the contents of the article is wrong or not true
- Give any other methodes or way to prove or demostrate that it is true..or not
- Any other positive opinion or suggestion

But the only answer you all give are negative: "it is a shit!", "there are not evidences", "nothing new",."it is only a speculatin without foundation"...Please, be positive !!!

You have been given detail explanations as to why it doesn't make any sense. You chose to ignore them.

Positive: it's very imaginative. (But not original)

Originally Posted by Strange

You have been given detail explanations as to why it doesn't make any sense. You chose to ignore them.

Please, could you make to me a list resum of them?...´. All explanations you give have been changed in the article (New Dimension, Laws are different at different levels,....)...If you read it now...it has been changed...but the main topics still are there ... because there aren´t detail explanations against them.

Originally Posted by Strange

Positive: it's very imaginative. (But not original)

You say that is not original...OK ...please give to me any link to some similar proposal...I develope it...because I didn´t find any thing similar...I was and am looking for it....

Originally Posted by dapifo

Please, could you make to me a list resum of them?...

No. I am not going to trawl through all your old threads copying and pasting other people's comments. Go and re-read them yourself. I have no interest in helping someone who is not willing to learn some basic science.

You say that is not original...OK ...please give to me any link to some similar proposal...

Oh come on. Its just the old schoolboy idea: "Wow! what if an atom was like a little solar system! And wow! What if our solar system was an atom!"

Most people grow out of that sort of nonsense when they are about 14.

GO AND LEARN SOME SCIENCE.

If you want to ask some intelligent questions, I am happy to answer them. But if you keep trying to relate every answer to this inane drivel, then I may not bother.

Grow up. You have had one idea which has been shown to be meaningless. Time to move on. This level of obsession is quite worrying.

There is not even a smidgeon of evidence to support your idea. There is no basis for believing that there is even a slight possibility it may be true. It does not, apparently, conflict with any established rules because the idea does not intersect with the real universe at any point.

It is absolutely your responsibility to provide supporting evidence. In the absence of such evidence your unfounded idea has no value whatsoever.

As a concept for an SF story it woul lack originality, but it be worth some minor attention and the absence of evidence would not be an obstacle. However the idea that this has any redeeming scientific value is laughable.

I should like you to answer four questions:

1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
2. If so what do you think of those theories?
3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?
4. Don't you think it's rather arrogant of you?

Originally Posted by John Galt

1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
2. If so what do you think of those theories?

I have often wondered this. Whenever I have asked, the "independent thinker" usually ignores it. Some will acknowledge ideas which are superficially similar to their own but which are "obviously" wrong in detail. I assume they think that all the others are as silly as we do.

i repeat,if it was like this,pope john paul2 would have won a nobel.

The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.

However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.

I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.

OK...OK...It is stupid...crasy...nosense...shit....childish idea ... arrogant ... crazy .... etc.....

But nobody tell me why...only because I am not one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century....but STRANGE allready though about it when he was 14th...humans are amazing beings ....reality exceeds fiction...

We´ll see in 20 years...please remember me !!!...

Originally Posted by dapifo

We´ll see in 20 years...please remember me !!!...

You got it.
Quick question... Who are you?

Originally Posted by dapifo

OK...OK...It is stupid...crasy...nosense...shit....childish idea ... arrogant ... crazy .... etc.....

Well, I wouldn't say all that. It's simply an unreasonable idea, and one may add flavor to that critique as harshly as he/she desires.

But nobody tell me why

You've been told repeatedly, actually. It's unreasonable because it lacks, well... reason. You are arbitrarily associating the nature of the universe with radiation spectra. In the process, you have conjured up a few stigma simply for the idea's self-integrity. You did not stem this off of observation, mathematical rigor, or educated questioning.

It's just one big "What if the universe is...?!" idea grabbed out of thin air. This thought process is what you'd expect from curious children and adolescents. It's actually present in many people curious of the sciences, and it takes time to grow out of.

Originally Posted by epidecus

The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.

However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.

I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.

I am going to give you an example....

Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :

Emanuel tells Argo ... sometimes I have the feeling that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, while the moon revolves around the Earth".

And Argo say: "it is stupid idea, I thought the same when I was 14th...but it is not possible to prove...so is stupid...and th earth is flat and every thing is roud it...till you cannot prove"

Emanuel says: " OK what we can do to prove it?.... we need a boat and cross the sea"

Argo: "Nothing because you are not one of the greatest minds of this Century...and nobody will listen you"

Emanuel: "OK you are right...Better I´ll forget it...till some great mind will be able to realize it...and get the support to prove it"

Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....

Originally Posted by dapifo

I am going to give you an example....

Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :


Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....

Whatever, this is just a method of denial while you ignore the refutations.

dapiflo, will you at least answer these three questions?

1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
2. If so what do you think of those theories?
3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by epidecus

The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.

I am going to give you an example....Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :Emanuel tells Argo ... sometimes I have the feeling that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, while the moon revolves around the Earth".And Argo say: "it is stupid idea, I thought the same when I was 14th...but it is not possible to prove...so is stupid...and th earth is flat and every thing is roud it...till you cannot prove"Emanuel says: " OK what we can do to prove it?.... we need a boat and cross the sea"Argo: "Nothing because you are not one of the greatest minds of this Century...and nobody will listen you"Emanuel: "OK you are right...Better I´ll forget it...till some great mind will be able to realize it...and get the support to prove it" Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....

you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.

Originally Posted by merumario

you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.

Meh... I disagree. He used an example that today we know to be correct even if they didn't have certainty then... the evidence was there and observable. There weren't really scientists following the scientific method- there were Philosophers.
However, observers examining the motions in the sky and ships coming over the horizon had inferred it thousands of years ago. Eratosthenes had even calculated to good accuracy the circumference of the globe about 2000 years ago.

He then compared this example to his suggestion which is not only not inferred, but contradicts observation.

A more accurate comparison would be the two in the fictional play as speculating about stars being great bonfires in the sky, set ablaze to keep the Gods warm at night. Doesn't match much observation, is highly speculative and not very scientific.

i agree with neverfly! let us see it as if he still in the stone ages....and we are in the modern age....so he might have a case in the stonge age but not here.so my advice to him is to go back and state your idea clear....note;philosophy gives the rise to science.

Originally Posted by John Galt

dapiflo, will you at least answer these three questions?

1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
2. If so what do you think of those theories?
3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?

I have been looking for it at internet...but is so long...I´ll will read ... and see.

But ... please, could you make me an abstract...and give to me your opinion?

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by epidecus

The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.

I am going to give you an example....Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :Emanuel tells Argo ... sometimes I have the feeling that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, while the moon revolves around the Earth".And Argo say: "it is stupid idea, I thought the same when I was 14th...but it is not possible to prove...so is stupid...and th earth is flat and every thing is roud it...till you cannot prove"Emanuel says: " OK what we can do to prove it?.... we need a boat and cross the sea"Argo: "Nothing because you are not one of the greatest minds of this Century...and nobody will listen you"Emanuel: "OK you are right...Better I´ll forget it...till some great mind will be able to realize it...and get the support to prove it" Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....

you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.

Ok...but nowadays it is not so easy to prove ideas...possible you will need particle accelerator, space radar network, ...and it needs a lot of fund... more than three boats like Colon...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.

Meh... I disagree. He used an example that today we know to be correct even if they didn't have certainty then... the evidence was there and observable. There weren't really scientists following the scientific method- there were Philosophers.
However, observers examining the motions in the sky and ships coming over the horizon had inferred it thousands of years ago. Eratosthenes had even calculated to good accuracy the circumference of the globe about 2000 years ago.

He then compared this example to his suggestion which is not only not inferred, but contradicts observation.

A more accurate comparison would be the two in the fictional play as speculating about stars being great bonfires in the sky, set ablaze to keep the Gods warm at night. Doesn't match much observation, is highly speculative and not very scientific.

Why we don´t forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were?

M-DIMENSIOM

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why we don´t forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were?

M-DIMENSIOM

No.

Originally Posted by dapifo;373731Why we don´t forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were?

[URL="http://matryoshka-dimension.blogspot.com.es/"

M-DIMENSIOM[/URL]

Ok. You can't shine shit. That's all the discussion it deserves.

Why would you think that this time there'd be a different opinion from last time?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by John Galt

dapiflo, will you at least answer these three questions?

1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
2. If so what do you think of those theories?
3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?

I have been looking for it at internet...but is so long...I´ll will read ... and see.

But ... please, could you make me an abstract...and give to me your opinion?

dapiflo I am not asking if you have seen others put forward a 'theory' similar to yours, I am asking if you have seen anyone put forward a 'theory' that seeks to explain how the universe works.

There are hundreds of these. They are different from your theory. The authors of this theory are convinced they have the correct 'theory'. Now what makes you think of all these hundreds of 'theories' that yours i the correct one? And also, I ask you again, what makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?

You asked me to give you an opinion, I take you to mean an opinion about your 'theory'. I thought I already had, but here it is: bollocks. It is simplistic, childish, unimaginative, and unsupported by even a picogram of evidence. I regret that I have to use such harsh words, but your obsession with such a basically silly idea is doing you no good. I hope to shock some sense into you, since I hate to see anyone wasting their time on trivial nonsense.

Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....

Originally Posted by dapifo

but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....

Again: You have been given many good reasons why it makes no sense. I seem to remember there were some pretty detailed explanations provided on BAUT/CosmoQuest. I am not going to go back and re-read them, but perhaps you should.

Why we don´t forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were? .....
.....
Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....

Let's get something clear. This is not, repeat not, a forum of working cosmologists or similar scientists working at the leading edge of science theory.

This is a science forum where we discuss news and questions raised about science.

1.a We do not do science here.

1.b We have no capacity for gathering data, for collaborating on papers, or any other genuinely scientific activity that might happen in a university or similar scientific institution.

2. Nor do we have a kitchen where people can gather after a party to lean on benches or appliances while drunkenly ruminating until 4 am on cosmological theories that the universe could be flat, spherical or W-shaped.

I and most other people think that the ideas you propose are in category 2.
You seem to think we can treat it as a real scientific investigation as in category 1.

We can do neither of these things in this forum. Even if we wanted to - and we don't.

do you want us to come and right in your note tab or what ever you used in your idea?

do you want us to come and write in your note tab or what ever you used in your idea?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....

I find it offensive that you deliberatly misinterpret my words. I have not claimed, and no reasonable reading of my posts could lead you to think I have claimed, that the members on this site are "the greatest minds of the 20th Century".

What I have stated is that your silly ideas run counter to the theories that have been proposed, developed, tested and validated by those who do have minds of that calibre. And you have the audacity to think your pathetic, half baked nonsense is superior to those theories. I ask you again. What makes you think you have such vast intellectual capacity and stunning insight?

You have been given amazing leeway on the forum to spout and promote patent nonsense. I think you owe the forum membership the decency to answer my question. Are you decent enough to do so?

galt,you should'nt lose you temper.

I didn't. Don't confuse vigorous expression of thoughts with loss of control. Don't confuse rhetoric with reality. (Don't confuse Warri with Escravos.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....

Again: You have been given many good reasons why it makes no sense. I seem to remember there were some pretty detailed explanations provided on BAUT/CosmoQuest. I am not going to go back and re-read them, but perhaps you should.

Yes...you are right STRANGE...I learn a lot of mainstream with you and SHAULA...(and others)... but what do youthing about the different system to get evidences I include...(for small scales I forgot the Particle Accelerator...I have to include it...

Originally Posted by adelady

Why we don´t forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were? .....
.....
Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....

Let's get something clear. This is not, repeat not, a forum of working cosmologists or similar scientists working at the leading edge of science theory.

This is a science forum where we discuss news and questions raised about science.

1.a We do not do science here.

1.b We have no capacity for gathering data, for collaborating on papers, or any other genuinely scientific activity that might happen in a university or similar scientific institution.

2. Nor do we have a kitchen where people can gather after a party to lean on benches or appliances while drunkenly ruminating until 4 am on cosmological theories that the universe could be flat, spherical or W-shaped.

I and most other people think that the ideas you propose are in category 2.
You seem to think we can treat it as a real scientific investigation as in category 1.

We can do neither of these things in this forum. Even if we wanted to - and we don't.

OK..adelady...what about discussing about different systems and methodes of detecting possible signals from out of Our Known Universe (Larger or Smaller)...EM or Gravitational waves....Cosmic microwave background radiation ( bobble collisions)...other...

OK..adelady...what about discussing about different systems and methods of detecting possible signals from out of Our Known Universe (Larger or Smaller)..

from out of Our Known Universe? Did you read what I wrote?

You'd have to provide some real citations from reputable journals to convince me that this is not yet another speculative adventure outside the bounds of science as we know it, as scientists do it, as journals publish it.

To. Be. Perfectly. Clear. Conjectures and speculations and imagination generally might lead to formulating hypotheses which can then be tested according to normal scientific processes. A conjecture or a speculation is not science and never has been science.

galt i was just trying to check you,friendly and not the other way round.

OK ... I refrain definitely ... it is clear that it is absolutely impossible to maintain a friendly and reasonable discussion about possible methods, technologies or systems that allow us to expand our scalar field (since 10 exp -35 to 10 exp + 27 meters). .... It is taboo among scientists to comment and to discuss topics that have not been properly approved by the greatest minds of the 20th Century, or early years of the 21st... incredible but true!....and also very sad and painful...

Stop misinterpreting. Please answer these questions. If you choose not to I shall be asking the moderator team to look at your behaviour here. I will not moderate this thread, or your approach, since I have been actively involved in this discussion. Please avoid this by answering the questions. I shall rephrase them in the hope of making them clearer to you.

1. Do you understand that you are one of humdreds of people claiming to have an important new insight as to how the universe works? If you were not previously aware of this, do you now understand that ideas such as you claim are extremely common?

2. What is it that distinguishes your ideas from all those other ones? Why should we believe you have a valuable insight, when none of the others have? (And in many cases their insights, if correct, would completely disprove your insight.)

3. How is it that you have found it possible to have this insight when the greatest minds (etc) have not had that insight? Are you aware that the advances in science have been made by highly intelligent, dedicated men who first learned all there was to know about their chosen field? How do you expect to build menaing on ignorance?


I remind you - fail to make a genuine attempt to answer these questions and I shall be requesting that your participation here be examined by the moderator team.

come on and defend your idea,mr idealist.

galt am afraid you are wrong....how can you say they learned everything that there is to know abt their fields? who told you einstein knew everything about light before his 1905 wonderful year.

the idea that a single man knows everything about something is folly.man in is natural self is dependent on another man.we call ourselves scientist,physicist,astronuts,philosophers and preist,etc. but how far can we go without the help of our brothers?

galt you would'nt have made it here without your brothers....all great minds were once feabile minds....if they could not thoes not mean anyone else cannot...it is never bad having an idea and assuming the great mind did not have thesame thing...if that was the case,einstein would have never supercide newton.

dapifo your idea is not accepted,not because you are not a great mind but because there is no proof,no math....work on yourself if you know you are wish for stars.

Originally Posted by merumario

galt am afraid you are wrong....how can you say they learned everything that there is to know abt their fields? who told you einstein knew everything about light before his 1905 wonderful year.

Pay attention. There is an implicit "that was known at that time". It was Einstein's detailed knowledge of Maxwell and Lorentz and the others which enabled him to have the insights he did which thereby extended his field.

galt you would'nt have made it here without your brothers

You are starting to annoy me. You are not putting words in my mouth, but you seem to wish to put attitudes in my mind. Where have I indicated that I made it here alone? Where did I indicate I made it anywhere? This is not about me. This is not about my skills, or my idea. This is about a trivial piece of nonsense and an attempt to get its author to recognise that he is wasting his time. Encouraging stupidity is not a socially responsible action.

Originally Posted by dapifo

It is taboo among scientists to comment and to discuss topics that have not been properly approved by the greatest minds of the 20th Century, or early years of the 21st

Nonsense. It is just that nobody wants to waste more than 5 minutes discussing an idea which is prima facie meaningless nonsense.

"But I thought of it so it must be a good idea."

What if I kept insisting that everyone keep discussing my idea that "all matter that falls into a black hole turns into chocolate" (You can't prove it wrong!)? Why would anyone take such an idea seriously? But it is just as rational and well-thought out as your idea.

Give it up.

Move on.

Grow up.

Go and study some basic science. It is a fascinating subject, I promise you. But it does take a certain amount of hard work. And the need to develop critical thinking skills (which you currently seem to be slightly lacking)

Or, if you just want to make up silly ideas for people to read, go and write science fiction stories.

Originally Posted by John Galt

1. Do you understand that you are one of humdreds of people claiming to have an important new insight as to how the universe works? If you were not previously aware of this, do you now understand that ideas such as you claim are extremely common?.

Really I thought that several possibilities like this were handled by scientifics for the Universe..and that several research projects were going on trying to clarify them...that is the only thing that I am trying to do, ...to have a reasonable discussion with normal scientifics about them:

1.- The limmits of Our Known Universe nowadays are not the absolute limmits....
2.- ...and we have to tray to wider them by very complex research (possibly taking into account more dimensions (scales)...Calabi-yau (6D) for small dimensions and 5D for large dimensions (scales).
3.- Whit type of technologies...could we use to do and prove it ?

Originally Posted by John Galt

2. What is it that distinguishes your ideas from all those other ones? Why should we believe you have a valuable insight, when none of the others have? (And in many cases their insights, if correct, would completely disprove your insight.).

As I told you before...I though that thi idea was not original..and that a lot of theories were studing it...I only asked for these existing theories...but my surprse was that nothing exist about...so I would like to comment them...with reasonable peoble...but...you see the results !!!(???)

Originally Posted by John Galt

3. How is it that you have found it possible to have this insight when the greatest minds (etc) have not had that insight? Are you aware that the advances in science have been made by highly intelligent, dedicated men who first learned all there was to know about their chosen field? How do you expect to build menaing on ignorance?.

merumario answer you by myself in post 67. ..Do you know what mean team work?

Originally Posted by John Galt

I remind you - fail to make a genuine attempt to answer these questions and I shall be requesting that your participation here be examined by the moderator team.

Done....

To see further than anyone has seen before, you need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

dapifo,
thank you for your response. I believe that you actually think that you answered my three groups of questions. I have tried to help you, first with reasoned argument and then shock tactics. Nothing has worked. Further discussion with you is fruitless.

Done.

Ok Galt I respect your opinions and advice ... but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem .... sure there will be someone that will help to take a wider vision of the universe ... although it is not a proposal accepted by mainstream...these discussions help me to nderstand better the Universe and its the underlaying laws....thnaks for your help...

Originally Posted by dapifo

these discussions help me to nderstand better the Universe and its the underlaying laws....thnaks for your help...

Going about it backwards is how you learn? You learn by throwing out ideas, being told what's wrong with them, arguing with those responses and demanding to be proved wrong- and this is how you learn about the Universe and gain understanding of the "underlaying laws?"

Seems simpler to pick up a book and read it.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by dapifo

these discussions help me to nderstand better the Universe and its the underlaying laws....thnaks for your help...

Going about it backwards is how you learn? You learn by throwing out ideas, being told what's wrong with them, arguing with those responses and demanding to be proved wrong- and this is how you learn about the Universe and gain understanding of the "underlaying laws?"

Seems simpler to pick up a book and read it.

Wnich are yours studies: knowledge and speciality ?... and yur current job?

but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....

Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?

Originally Posted by AlexG

but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....

Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?

AlexG...Wnich are yours studies: knowledge and speciality ?... and yur current job?

Originally Posted by AlexG

but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....

Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?

Just thought that was worth repeating.

Dapifo, how much "respect" are you going to give to my Chocolate Black Holes theory? Are you going to try and disprove it? Are you going to help me come up with the math and experiments to confirm it? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by AlexG

but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....

Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?

Just thought that was worth repeating.

Dapifo, how much "respect" are you going to give to my Chocolate Black Holes theory? Are you going to try and disprove it? Are you going to help me come up with the math and experiments to confirm it? If not, why not?

STRAGE it is absurd to try to compare your theory about "Chocolate Black Holes theory"... and the "flying pink elephants in a black hole" .. with my proposal that the "scale of our universe strip may be wider over time" ... and to ask about systems and technology to prove it...Do you really see any similarity?

Originally Posted by dapifo

STRAGE it is absurd to try to compare your theory about "Chocolate Black Holes theory"... and the "flying pink elephants in a black hole" .. with my proposal that the "scale of our universe strip may be wider over time" ... and to ask about systems and technology to prove it...Do you really see any similarity?

Can you show exactly how they are different?
Do you have more mathematics in your theory than me?
Do you have more experimental evidence for your theory than me?
Do you have more support from established theory than me?
Is mine easier to disprove than yours?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

STRAGE it is absurd to try to compare your theory about "Chocolate Black Holes theory"... and the "flying pink elephants in a black hole" .. with my proposal that the "scale of our universe strip may be wider over time" ... and to ask about systems and technology to prove it...Do you really see any similarity?

Can you show exactly how they are different?
Do you have more mathematics in your theory than me?
Do you have more experimental evidence for your theory than me?
Do you have more support from established theory than me?
Is mine easier to disprove than yours?

OK,OK..Strange..I agree with you...If you want I can help you to look for systems to prve your "Chocolate Black Holes theory"...do you have any idea how to start ?

Originally Posted by dapifo

OK,OK..Strange..I agree with you...

So you agree that they are both utterly stupid ideas with no basis in reality?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

OK,OK..Strange..I agree with you...

So you agree that they are both utterly stupid ideas with no basis in reality?

No absolutly NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you don´t realize it....

Originally Posted by dapifo

NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you don´t realize it....

So explain.

This is a serious question.

Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

To see further than anyone has seen before, you need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I absolutely love it. Is that derived from Newton?

Yes, Newton once wrote in a letter, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" although it seems the phrase was first used in the 12th century.

Dapifo, this is a reference to the fact that to further science, it is necessary to build upon the work of those who have gone before you, rather than ignore it.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Dapifo, this is a reference to the fact that to further science, it is necessary to build upon the work of those who have gone before you, rather than ignore it.

Quite. Which is why I keep asking dapifo to learn some science instead of just making up fairy stories that he likes.

Originally Posted by epidecus

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

To see further than anyone has seen before, you need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I absolutely love it. Is that derived from Newton?

Why do you supose that I am not standing on the shoulders of giants.?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you don´t realize it....

So explain.

This is a serious question.

Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?

Any clid could answer your question...it is just a problem of comun sense...do you have it?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Yes, Newton once wrote in a letter, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" although it seems the phrase was first used in the 12th century.

Dapifo, this is a reference to the fact that to further science, it is necessary to build upon the work of those who have gone before you, rather than ignore it.

SpeedFreef don´t be freaky please....to understan my proposals is required a minimmum of comun sense and physics knouledge... who are you to discuss my proposals???... please, intrduce your self !!!

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you don´t realize it....

So explain.

This is a serious question.

Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?

Any clid could answer your question...it is just a problem of comun sense...do you have it?

That's (part of) the problem. Common sense is absolutely useless. You think your idea has some value based on your "common sense". It doesn't and you are unable to see that.

It has exactly as much value as my theory. As proved by the fact that you cannot provide any objective reason to prefer one over the other.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you don´t realize it....

So explain.

This is a serious question.

Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?

Any clid could answer your question...it is just a problem of comun sense...do you have it?

That's (part of) the problem. Common sense is absolutely useless. You think your idea has some value based on your "common sense". It doesn't and you are unable to see that.

It has exactly as much value as my theory. As proved by the fact that you cannot provide any objective reason to prefer one over the other.

Why do you not answer reasoning my post http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post374766

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why do you supose that I am not standing on the shoulders of giants.?

Because you seem to be ignoring the work of those who have gone before you, rather than building upon it.

You need to research topological spaces and manifolds for starters.

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why do you not answer reasoning my post http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post374766

I did. In the post immediately before and immediately after. THERE IS NO 5D SPACE.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why do you supose that I am not standing on the shoulders of giants.?

Because you seem to be ignoring the work of those who have gone before you, rather than building upon it.

You need to research topological spaces and manifolds for starters.

Please, could you introduce your self...and tell to me your background... I think you are also not very expert...are you an student?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why do you not answer reasoning my post http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post374766

I did. In the post immediately before and immediately after. THERE IS NO 5D SPACE.

NO...you jast said...that there are not EVIDENCES of 5D !!!...that is very differet ...

Originally Posted by dapifo

NO...you jast said...that there are not EVIDENCES of 5D !!!...that is very differet ...

Not in science it isn't. (Not that you will understand that.)

If you want to introduce five-dimensional spacetime, you will have to start by replacing all of relativity theory and therefore a large part of quantum physics. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

NO...you jast said...that there are not EVIDENCES of 5D !!!...that is very differet ...

Not in science it isn't. (Not that you will understand that.)

If you want to introduce five-dimensional spacetime, you will have to start by replacing all of relativity theory and therefore a large part of quantum physics. Good luck with that.

What do you mean?... Do you know about the Calabi-yau 6D shapes?...SR/GR and QM don´t say any thing about the dimensions out of OUR UNIVERSE.

OUR UNIVERSE (please read the definition in Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe) is 4D shape...then, if mre universes exist out there...the nex level has to be 5D.."iit s elemental my dear STRANGE"....